Rolling Stock For Sale

I got very disappointed the last time I visited the Bluebell (which was some time ago now), as the LNWR Observation carriage was out of service for some reason. The other coach I do like in their collection is the LBSCR Directors' coach. Many years ago, it was on the back of a service set, so I took advantage of the supplement fare, which was well worth it.

To be honest, I haven't heard much about it of late, but if you hear it is running, try and get down to the Bluebell and have a ride in it, you won't be disappointed.

I have just been on the Bluebell Carriage website, and it appears it has never been used so far, so what was the carriage I was in then?

Ah, mystery solved, it was in fact the Great Northern Railway Directors' Saloon

 

The LBSCR Directors’ saloon was in use in the 1970s but not since. The LNWR Obo is routinely in use, it is just about the highest mileage vehicle on the railway.

Last time I was there, over half term, there were 18 carriages in use on three trains and only three of those were Mark 1s. The rest ranged from 90+ to about 140 years old.

Tom

 

I was going to say, your last visit must have been many, many years ago. From my recollection, the last of the "Poison Teas runs" with the Brighton Directors saloon must have been on the wrong side of the 1980s. My memories of it actually in service are very distant, almost sepia-toned.

 

Hi Mark, thinking about it overnight, yes, I do recall it was said at the time that it couldn't be used due to it having Asbestos inside it. Now I am sure there are many reasons why it is where it is in the restoration queue. Now I am not taking anything away from the C&W department on the bluebell, as they are, in my mind, one of the finest restoration teams in the UK, and if you take into consideration the time, money and voluntary effort required to keep the working fleet in the condition that it has, all more power to their joint elbows.

Getting something like the LBSCR Directors' saloon back into service is going to require a massive effort, not only in voluntary time and effort, but also in management planning, fundraising and all the unseen work that no one sees in the background. It will require at least one person to take the lead to see the project through from the start to the finish line, and not to get despondent with it halfway through the project when things start to go wrong (or when someone throws a spanner in the works, which often happens).

I am sure that we have all seen various carriages at different railways looking a bit worse for wear over the years, and in light of what I have said, it is no wonder that a lot of standard gauge railways used MK1 coaches.

Now, those of you who are involved with carriage and wagon restoration will know of both the Annual get-together and the Vintage Carriage Trust database of all known heritage carriages.

Now I understand that there individual networks between the various restoration groups, but I do wonder if it is time to think about the long-term care of many of these coaches, with the setting up of some sort of trade body as a central point for the various spares that maybe require, or even dealing with reputable craftsmen and also dealing with raising funds for the various projects and maybe in the long term having a carriage rebuilding facility like the one on the East Somerset Railway that deals exclusivly with the restoration of mainly wooden carriage body coaches.

2ft narrow gauge railway, on the other hand have become dependent on building new or replica rolling stock, since there has never been a scrap yard of RTR 2ft gauge rolling stock in modern times.

But I do wonder if the discussion needs to take place now, otherwise we may end up losing more carriages than we might do now.

 

In what way does doing any of those things help preserve more vintage carriages? Does it generate more money? More skills? More under-cover storage space? More workshop capacity? Or are you just trying to impose an additional level of bureaucracy on a sector that seems quite capable of liaison and co-operation between groups when required?

Looking at today's roster on the Bluebell, there are three Maunsells (from the 1930s) on service train A; the four Mets (from 1898 - 1900) on service train B; the LNWR Obo (from 1913) on a non-service train; and the three Pullmans (from the 1920s) on the evening doing service. Many other vintage carriages, both operational and stored, are under cover in two large carriage sheds - including the LBSCR director's saloon, FWIW. The C&W workshop has, under workshop conditions, an LBSCR four wheeler (1890s); SECR bogie carriage (1920s) and a Maunsell restaurant car (1930s) all being worked on, as well as a couple of wagon projects. That's from home-grown resources, and no-doubt over the years much informal help and assistance to and fro from other railways and groups. All of that can happen without adding another trade body into the mix.

As for having a central carriage rebuilding facility - if there is a market, someone will jump in, just as there are a few specialist locomotive contractors. But heritage engineering in general is a tough market to be in, because on the one hand your clients are already a bit hand to mouth financially, so projects tend to be a bit stop-start to align with funding; and on the other, it is very hard to come up with realistic schedules of work (and therefore quotes) for what are bespoke items in uncertain condition. And just suppose you created some giant workshop able to work on half a dozen vehicles at once - if that is supposed to be a facility for the entire heritage community, who gets to decide on which half dozen you start with?

You seem incapable of ever looking at a problem on a heritage railway without thinking the answer is to create a new organisation, as if that alone will generate new resources out of thin air. It won't.

Tom

 

There are a few places that "do" wooden carriage restorations - but almost all are already attached to a railway.
But getting funding for projects is rarely easy ...

 

It's been a while since that name has appeared on the forum.

Does anyone know what stage that the other projects Mr Reeder was involved with got to (I seem to recall another carriage, and a fairly well stripped AB saddle tank?)

Demonstrable progress on those projects might give folk more confidence.

Chris

 

Asbestos removal was done, to the best of my knowledge, several decades ago, when a start was made, working alongside the old platform 1 at HK, of replacing the 1930s sliding toplights with original pattern LB&SCR replacements. Unfortunately, this project ran out of money, impetus, whatever and the vehicle was stored. One of the issues with the Brighton saloon, is its lack of a proper gangway connection to make it a viable addition to a service set.

 

Part of me would really like to see that carriage restored. But a bigger part thinks we should concentrate on the vernacular, not the special - hence being pleased to see work on 971 after many years, a carriage I remember from early visits to the railway right through to the 2000s.

FWIW, the holy grail carriage project for me on the Bluebell is to recreate a birdcage trio set as well as possible within the available vehicles: a set absolutely synonymous with branch lines in that part of the world.

Tom

 

I strongly agree. I also seem to remember a point of view that, in the 1960s, it would be impossible to preserve much and therefore there should be a consolidated railway preservation society. That organisation became what is now the Chasewater Railway. In the meantime, we have a range of others that give far greater range.

Trust people to work together informally, don't try to force structure too far.

 

In Stuart's own words...

Barclay was split for parts
45036 saloon chassis (owned by cambrian railway (CHR) now )
Hauler scrapped 617

I seem to recall the Barclay being claimed by someone he owed rent to for it, and the haulier scrapped 617 to pay an unpaid haulage bill. Or, in other words, nothing that he has got his hands on has had a good outcome in that ownership....

 

Inspection saloon stripped to underframe which is now with the Cambrian Railway
Sleeper reported as scrapped by haulier
Barclay reported as dismantled for parts

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

Re GCR carriages:

GoFundMe page appears to have been taken down

Facebook page still active

 

I wonder where the £225 has gone to?
@J Rob't Harrison have you had a refund yet?

 

I requested a refund from Go Fund Me last night. I haven't checked my emails as to whether that has gone through yet.

What has really annoyed me was the 'I'm not involved' in one post (1429?) followed a few posts later by a complete 180. I don't react well to being lied to.

 

With regard point 1 - I had wondered all along whether the proposer actually had an agreement in place with the GCRN to purchase the carriages.

AIUI there isn't an absolute block on a charity disposing assets to a non-charity body. However, there are checks and balances to go through.

Firstly - which seems obvious, but is sometimes unclear on heritage railways - is to determine that you do in fact own the objects to be disposed.

If you are satisfied of that, then broadly the main concern is to "act in the charity's best interest". For non-heritage assets, that would normally just mean obtaining the best price (and having a process to show you had done so). For a heritage charity disposing of heritage assets, there is a plausible argument to be made that disposing for less than the best price to another individual or organisation may in fact advance your own charity's objectives if that individual or organisation undertakes to further the preservation of the item. For a museum, where the item in question is considered part of the collection, those conditions are stricter, but I don't believe the GCRN is a registered museum.

Ultimately, even if the GCRN has made its mind up to remove the carriages, doing so is likely to be controversial. The scrap value (and therefore the extent to which sale would make a material difference to the charity's financial state) will be very low; in that circumstance I can understand the trustees wishing to be very cautious with disposal and not go down in perpetuity as "the board that de facto allowed a priceless heritage relic go be scrapped". In which case "we'll only hand over to a charity" might be a convenient figleaf, even if not strictly required.

Tom